If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

However the higher AR of the F-14's wing gives it more lift and less drag pr. area, which is also what allows it to land on a carrier while the F-15 would be completely incapable of that because of it's higher stall speed.

And this makes it more maneuverable? BTW it has been documented the F-4 is easier to land on a carrier than an F-14. I think its well recognized that the F-14 was designed to land on a carrier, something the F-15 was not.

Ahhh, no it hasn't, in fact I tink just the opposite has been proven - its been shown that the F-15 has a larger wing area, lower wing loading, and higher thrust to weight ratio.

Errr, no. The F-15 might have a lower wing loading but that doesn't tell us anything. Why ? Cause the F-14s wing produces more lift & less drag pr. area. I'd say the F-14's lower stall speed is a pretty good indicator of this

As for T/W ratio, well it really aint that much, and in a turn it will have to make up for the extra drag of the F-15.

Again, no one fights in the horizontal in this century unless they want to die quickly

Have I ever disagreed with that ??? No. However there's a reason the gatling gun is there. If a lock on is impossible or if the missiles fail and you're forced into a dogfight, then the superior dogfighting capability and addition of a gatling gun will come in handy.

I could somewhat agree on the radar depending on the scenrio and the time period. By now even the F-14D radar is bettered by many aircraft

But which a/c can fire the Phoenix missile ? The F-14.

Okay today the radars have become better, but in 1991 where the latest version of both a/c were in service the F-14 had a distinct advantage.

And this makes it more maneuverable? BTW it has been documented the F-4 is easier to land on a carrier than an F-14. I think its well recognized that the F-14 was designed to land on a carrier, something the F-15 was not.

The wing sweep action works automatically on the F-14, adjusting according to the flight mode of the a/c. If entering a tight turn the sweep is varied automatically to give the best results. This gives it better turn performance.

Errr, no. The F-15 might have a lower wing loading but that doesn't tell us anything. Why ? Cause the F-14s wing produces more lift & less drag pr. area. I'd say the F-14's lower stall speed is a pretty good indicator of this

Prove it...The F-14's low stall speed (with the wings fully extended) is about 90 knots and it was designed for this for carrier landings, no one is disputing that, it doesn't mean the F-14 could turn better in a dogfight - as a matter of fact its taught at Top Gun (When the F-14 was operational) NOT to turn with any fighter (unless you're fighting an F-4 or MiG-25).

Originally Posted by Soren

As for T/W ratio, well it really aint that much, and in a turn it will have to make up for the extra drag of the F-15.

It makes all the differance, and again prove that the F-15 puts out more drag . The extra power enables the aircraft to remain in the turn without loosing energy and unless you have a figet that is better than a 1 to 1 TR, you will loose energy in the turn. The F-14 TR is LESS and 1 to 1

Originally Posted by Soren

Have I ever disagreed with that ??? No. However there's a reason the gatling gun is there. If a lock on is impossible or if the missiles fail and you're forced into a dogfight, then the superior dogfighting capability and addition of a gatling gun will come in handy.

And the F-15 has the same gun, again your point?

Originally Posted by Soren

But which a/c can fire the Phoenix missile ? The F-14.

And it was designed to do so from the outset so it could kill Soviet Bombers.

Originally Posted by Soren

Okay today the radars have become better, but in 1991 where the latest version of both a/c were in service the F-14 had a distinct advantage.

as a matter of fact its taught at Top Gun (When the F-14 was operational) NOT to turn with any fighter (unless you're fighting an F-4 or MiG-25).

That's odd, I've heard the exact opposite. A hard breaking turn in the horizontal was the recommended evasive maneuver against the smaller & lighter a/c of the instructors, as well as against MIG-29's.

That's odd, I've heard the exact opposite. A hard breaking turn in the horizontal was the recommended evasive maneuver against the smaller & lighter a/c of the instructors, as well as against MIG-29's.

Vertical - the aircraft has power so it goes vertical to initiate "the egg" and possibly go into a yo-yo. Turning with a MiG-29? You'll die very quick.

Hi Guys, to set the score straight (if that can be done) in 1999 F-14Ds from VF2 on patrol in Southern Watch squeezed off two phoenix's but the Mig-23s (or Mig-25s) depending on the teller detected the missile launch and turned away at high speed opening Vc. One missile went dumb into the ground. Both missed. An F-18 was ordered to take a Sparrow shot but range was opening very quickly. So the first combat (and only) use did not fair well.
Durning ACEVAL/AIMVAL at nellis between 1975-78 the USAF tried to validate tactics and types of missiles. Near the end of this engagement a forbidden conflict was arranged(F14 vs F15). The outcome was classified for quite a while, not so much for intel but for political sensitivities.
It went down like this; There was no ROE, The F-14s opened at BVR range and ACMI indicated quite a few splashes, once they closed to med to short range they were decimated by the F-15. (No brag just fact)
As for the F-16, my experience was if you hang a pod you effectively degrade the eagle eyes and the fight is now in the "phonebooth" And it is a knife fight with the F-15 bleeding badly.
In my current job I have at my fingertips the "real" data from F-5s to the Typhoon cause everyone is trying to sell their wares here.
Current open sources are pretty close but the fact that the Typhoon hasn't won a major sale outside europe is telling....saudi doesn't count. The maintainablity factor is more than double the F-18. Also the F-16 Block 60 with its AESA is kicking everyone's ass in this region.

Hi Guys, to set the score straight (if that can be done) in 1999 F-14Ds from VF2 on patrol in Southern Watch squeezed off two phoenix's but the Mig-23s (or Mig-25s) depending on the teller detected the missile launch and turned away at high speed opening Vc. One missile went dumb into the ground. Both missed. An F-18 was ordered to take a Sparrow shot but range was opening very quickly. So the first combat (and only) use did not fair well.
Durning ACEVAL/AIMVAL at nellis between 1975-78 the USAF tried to validate tactics and types of missiles. Near the end of this engagement a forbidden conflict was arranged(F14 vs F15). The outcome was classified for quite a while, not so much for intel but for political sensitivities.
It went down like this; There was no ROE, The F-14s opened at BVR range and ACMI indicated quite a few splashes, once they closed to med to short range they were decimated by the F-15. (No brag just fact)
As for the F-16, my experience was if you hang a pod you effectively degrade the eagle eyes and the fight is now in the "phonebooth" And it is a knife fight with the F-15 bleeding badly.
In my current job I have at my fingertips the "real" data from F-5s to the Typhoon cause everyone is trying to sell their wares here.
Current open sources are pretty close but the fact that the Typhoon hasn't won a major sale outside europe is telling....saudi doesn't count. The maintainablity factor is more than double the F-18. Also the F-16 Block 60 with its AESA is kicking everyone's ass in this region.

"There was no ROE, The F-14s opened at BVR range and ACMI indicated quite a few splashes, once they closed to med to short range they were decimated by the F-15. (No brag just fact)"

It went down like this; There was no ROE, The F-14s opened at BVR range and ACMI indicated quite a few splashes, once they closed to med to short range they were decimated by the F-15. (No brag just fact)

When you say "quite a few splashes", do you mean the F-14's scored several "kills" against the -15's?

Originally Posted by krieghund

As for the F-16, my experience was if you hang a pod you effectively degrade the eagle eyes and the fight is now in the "phonebooth" And it is a knife fight with the F-15 bleeding badly.

Also, when you say "hang a pod", I assume you mean the F-16 is carrying an AN/ALQ-131 or AN/ALQ-184 ECM pod. So the -16 effectively "turns & burns" better than the F-15?

Originally Posted by krieghund

In my current job I have at my fingertips the "real" data from F-5s to the Typhoon cause everyone is trying to sell their wares here.
Current open sources are pretty close but the fact that the Typhoon hasn't won a major sale outside europe is telling....saudi doesn't count. The maintainablity factor is more than double the F-18. Also the F-16 Block 60 with its AESA is kicking everyone's ass in this region.

Interesting info; I had no idea the EF-2000 was so maintenance intensive. I had always thought the Eurofighter was supposed to be "user friendly"; I guess not. It's good to know about the Block 60, I'm glad our defense industry is doing SOMETHING right.

I don't see how it is irrelevant to the discussion when it was a direct answer to your question. You asked how the F-14's wing was more efficient than the other's. Are we not allowed to answer questions anymore ?

My direct question was to see if you were really serious about a.) the claim relative to turn manueverability based on 'the 'stream tube' and associated efficiencies implied.

You correctly identified your lack of knowledge about your references and the associated context.

The answer is that given the much higher AR of the F-14's wing there is no doubt it is more efficient.

At low speeds under 400 kts I might concede the thesis but I would like to see the data. At transonic and above the F-15 and F-16 AR don't change as the F-14 moves back to full sweepback, low AR, lower T/W.

They all use LE slats/flaps to increase camber and reenergize the boundary layer, so in that department they're equal. However the higher AR of the F-14's wing gives it more lift and less drag pr. area, which is also what allows it to land on a carrier while the F-15 would be completely incapable of that because of it's higher stall speed.

Soren, the reason we get into these debates is that you are opinion based, not fact based.

If you wish to maintain the AR of the F-14 in transonic to supersonic is greater - prove it (it will be tough). If you wish to maintain the F-14 radar is superior - prove it. If you want to dismiss the huge energy manueverability disadvantage for the F-14, show how 20-25% higher T/W ratio, 20% lower lift loading and higher acceleration for both the F-16 and F-15 - is to the F-14 advantage.. prove it.

Last - you wish to fall back to your stream tube dissertaion, and repeat slowly what you think you mean - then tell us again how 'small stream tube' implies more efficiency - help us out by proving the small, heavy swing wing F-14 has a less concentrated tip vortex and a more efficient wing than say a a U-2.

Knock yourself out - you can use either swing wing or swept for the -14 to prove it's 'efficiency' over the much larger 'stream tube'

AWG-9: For it's time, the most powerful airborne radar system in the world; able to track up to 24 targets at a time, and launch missles at 6 of them at one time. Range well in excess of 100 nm. However, it is based and built using analog technology from the '60's, was maintenance intensive, and was completely incapapable of being used in an a2g mode (which is why the F-14D got the AN/APG-71 digital multi-mode radar); could probably best be compared to the RP-25 Smerch radar on the later MiG-25 interceptor.

AN/APG-63(V)3: Completely digital, multi-mode AESA technology, classified range (the broadly similar radar in the F-22, the AN/APG-77, has a range "in excess of 320 miles"), multiple LRU's, can be used interchangably in both a2a & a2g modes, LPI frequency-hopping (the AWG-9 couldn't do this).